logo
Prairie birds — including Illinois' dapper bobolink — in steep decline, study says

Prairie birds — including Illinois' dapper bobolink — in steep decline, study says

Yahoo22-04-2025
The dapper black and yellow bobolink likes the Chicago area so much he flies here every spring from South America — a journey of about 6,000 miles.
By no means depleted, the plucky visitor goes on to dazzle the females of his species with a high-energy courtship display in which he soars over wildflower-studded fields, flapping his wings rapidly and singing a bright, burbling tune.
In the vast nature preserves surrounding the city, he is joined by the crafty eastern meadowlark, the elusive Henslow's sparrow, the stubby grasshopper sparrow, the tiny sedge wren and the gold-splashed dickcissel.
'If you go to a grassland in the Chicago area — if it's big enough — you're going to see those birds,' said Chicago Bird Alliance President Judy Pollock. 'The whole area used to look like that so it's kind of like going back in time.'
But if iconic grassland birds still appear to flourish here, the story is very different when the camera pans out across the Midwest and the Great Plains, according to the latest State of the Birds Report by scientists at U.S. bird conservation groups.
The nation's grassland birds, spread across 320 million acres in 14 states, have declined 43% since 1970, more than any other category, and are 'in crisis,' according to the report, released in March.
Overall, the study found that about a third of American bird species are of high or moderate conservation concern.
Even duck populations — previously a bright spot, with strong increases since 1970 — have trended downward in recent years, the report said.
'The bird conservation community and scientists sounded the alarm in 2019 about these declines,' said Amanda Rodewald, a professor and senior director at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Center for Avian Population Studies.
'We're a little over five years out and we're seeing they're becoming steeper — some of these trends. We know this is happening. We're now showing we have tools and data sets (that can help) managers and decision-makers to know specifically where they need to direct some conservation. What we need is the will to act.'
The study encourages practices such as coastal restoration, conservation ranching and seabird translocation, or transporting birds to locations where they are likely to thrive.
For grassland birds, which are losing 1 million to 2 million acres of habitat annually in the Great Plains, the study highlights solutions such as improved grazing practices for cattle and sheep, invasive plant removal, investment in grassland conservation and converting low-quality cropland to grassland.
The landmark 2019 study, which found that the North American bird population had dropped by nearly 3 billion since 1970, focused on the nation as a whole, while the new study focuses on birds that require certain specific habitats, such as forests and coastlines.
Those birds are better indicators of change in a particular habitat because they don't just dip in and out of it — they depend on it for survival.
In the case of grassland birds, including those in Illinois, the news isn't good. The study says birds that need grassland habitat are in crisis.
One measure the study looked at was 'tipping point' species status, which signals that a bird has lost more than 50% of its population within the past 50 years.
Shorebirds had the most tipping point species, with 19. Grassland birds had eight tipping point species, including the plucky bobolink and another Chicago classic, the Henslow's sparrow.
The bobolink was listed as an 'orange-alert' tipping point species, second only to the 'red-alert' category. Orange-alert status is for birds showing 'long-term population losses and accelerated recent declines within the past decade.'
The Henslow's sparrow was listed as a 'yellow-alert' with 'long-term population losses but relatively stable recent trends' and 'continued conservation efforts needed to sustain recovery.'
A total of 9% of the breeding population of Henslow's sparrows and 5% of the breeding population of meadowlarks are in Illinois, according to Jim Giocomo, the American Bird Conservancy's central region director.
The study's findings are important in part, he said, because humans live in the same environment as birds.
'Birds are literally our canary in the coal mine,' he said. 'The bird needs the same stuff we do but reacts to changes in the environment faster.'
Water availability, air pollution, chemicals and the decline of insect populations all can affect birds.
The eastern meadowlark, a fairly common sight for grassland birders in the Chicago area, wasn't singled out for concern in the study. But the LeConte's sparrow, lark bunting and western meadowlark — all grassland birds — were among the species that experienced the largest declines in the Midwest and Great Plains.
The LeConte's sparrow migrates through Illinois, and some western meadowlarks summer here. Lark buntings are generally found farther west.
The Chicago-area birding community has been working to restore grassland habitat for at least 20 years, according to Pollock, and forest preserve districts in and around Chicago have made good progress.
The Forest Preserves of Cook County, for instance, has removed trees and connected pieces of land to create sprawling prairies for grassland birds, which nest on the ground.
'They need really large areas to hide their nests from predators,' Pollock said. 'One hundred acres is small for them. They really want 1,000, 2,000 acres.'
The big grassland preserves in the region include Bartel Grassland and Bobolink Meadow near Tinley Park, Orland Grassland near Orland Park, Busse Woods near Elk Grove Village and Paul Douglas Preserve in Hoffman Estates.
A 2022 study by the nonprofit Bird Conservation Network found that dozens of birds, including the Henslow's sparrow, are doing surprisingly well in Chicago — likely because of the region's many parks and nature preserves, which cover nearly 10% of land in the six-county area.
Of 104 key species tracked in the study, 56% had stable or increasing populations in the Chicago region, while only 37% were stable or increasing in other areas of the state.
At the time, only about 410,000 breeding Henslow's sparrows remained in the world, and the birds were declining nationally.
However, the conservation network study found the birds were up an average of 3.4% per year in the Chicago area.
The bobolink was a different story, with the study finding the local bobolink population was down 2.9% per year since 1999.
Among the possible explanations: A lot of restored grasslands in the area tend to be dominated by tall grasses, and bobolinks may prefer a mix of grasses and flowering plants, Bird Conservation Network President Eric Secker told the Tribune in 2022. It was also possible that an international decline in insects, which is increasingly of concern to scientists, may have been reducing the birds' food supply.
Lastly, the problem may not have been limited to this region — or even this country, he said. Bobolinks are poisoned by farmers in Central and South America, where the birds feed on crops.
Solutions to the grassland bird decline vary among regions, although all rely on increasing or improving habitat. In the Great Plains, Rodewald highlighted the work of the Bird Conservancy of the Rockies, which encourages voluntary conservation by farmers and ranchers.
'People rely on the land for their livelihoods, and so any approaches that we're using to preserve birds in those areas needs to be really grounded in voluntary conservation measures,' Rodewald said.
In Illinois, 'agricultural intensification,' in which farmers squeeze more production out of their land, is a major contributor to grassland bird decline, she said. Agricultural intensification means bigger farms, larger single-crop areas, less rest for the land, fewer hedgerows and more chemicals.
Among the potential solutions: The government can give farmers financial incentives to return land to a more natural state, as in the farm bill's conservation reserve program.
The farm bill is a comprehensive package of legislation that sets agriculture and food policy and is supposed to be updated every five years. The 2018 farm bill has been extended twice as Republicans and Democrats argue about what should be included.
Bobolink-conscious management of hay fields also can help in Illinois, Pollock said. The birds lay several sets of eggs in the course of a summer, and mowing can prove fatal to the young.
'They're crunching up lots of baby bobolinks, and other grassland birds,' Pollock said.
The solutions include mowing in May, which discourages nesting. That's a good approach when conditions are right, Pollock said, but sometimes it's too wet to mow.
Rodewald said data on birds has improved, thanks to the efforts of volunteers and advances such as the popular eBird app, which allows everyday birders to submit detailed reports on their sightings.
'It's really adding to our ability to detect and diagnose population changes — and that, fundamentally, allows us to respond to them in ways that are more proactive, more cost-efficient and more effective on the ground,' she said.
For example, scientists can use eBird data to determine where installing a solar array is least likely to affect a sensitive bird population, or where a conservation measure — say, adding more trees — can benefit humans as well as birds.
'Despite the bad news, I think that because we have more information than ever and knowledge is power, we do have reason to hope,' Rodewald said.
nschoenberg@chicagotribune.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump is undermining his own ‘action plan' for AI, experts say
Trump is undermining his own ‘action plan' for AI, experts say

Los Angeles Times

time3 hours ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump is undermining his own ‘action plan' for AI, experts say

WASHINGTON — President Trump revealed an 'action plan' for artificial intelligence on Wednesday ostensibly designed to bolster the United States in its race against China for AI superiority. But experts in the field warn the administration is sidestepping safety precautions that sustain public trust, and is ignoring the impacts of research funding cuts and visa restrictions for scientists that could hold America back. Trump introduced the new policy with an address in Washington, a new government website and a slew of executive actions, easing restrictions on the export of AI technology overseas and greasing the wheels for infrastructural expansion that would accommodate the computing power required for an AI future — both top requests of American AI companies. The plan also calls for AI to be integrated more thoroughly across the federal government, including at the Pentagon, and includes a directive targeting 'woke' bias in large language models. The new website, says the United States 'is in a race to achieve global dominance in artificial intelligence,' and lays out three pillars of its plan for success: 'Accelerating Innovation, Building AI Infrastructure, and Leading International Diplomacy and Security.' Scholars of machine learning and AI believe that whichever country loses the race — toward general artificial intelligence, where AI has capabilities similar to the human mind, and ultimately toward superintelligence, where its abilities exceed human thought — will be unable to catch up with the exponential growth of the winner. Today, China and the United States are the only powers with competitive AI capabilities. 'Whether we like it or not, we're suddenly engaged in a fast-paced competition to build and define this groundbreaking technology that will determine so much about the future of civilization itself, because of the genius and creativity of Silicon Valley — and it is incredible, incredible genius, without question, the most brilliant place on Earth,' Trump said on Wednesday in his policy speech on AI. 'America is the country that started the AI race. And as president of the United States, I'm here today to declare that America is going to win it,' he added. 'We're going to work hard — we're going to win it. Because we will not allow any foreign nation to beat us. Our children will not live in a planet controlled by the algorithms of the adversary's advancing values.' Yoshua Bengio, founder of Mila-Quebec AI Institute and a winner of the Turing Award for his work on deep learning, told The Times that the urgency of the race is fueling concerning behavior from both sides. 'These technologies hold enormous economic potential,' Bengio said, 'but intense competition between countries or companies can create dangerous incentives to cut corners on safety in order to stay ahead.' Silicon Valley may be getting much of what it wants from Trump — but the administration's continued assault on the student visa program remains a significant concern for the very same tech firms Trump aims to empower. Yolanda Gil, senior director of AI and data science initiatives at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, said that the Trump administration's reductions in funding and visas 'will reduce U.S. competitiveness in AI and all technology areas, not just in the near future but for many years to come,' noting that almost 500,000 international students in science and engineering are currently enrolled in U.S. universities. The majority of America's top AI companies have been founded by first- or second-generation immigrants, and 70% of full-time graduate students at U.S. institutions working in AI-related fields have come from abroad. Yet the administration's revocation and crackdown on F-1 visas risks crippling the talent pipeline the industry views as essential to success against China. Funding cuts to research institutions, too, threaten the stability of programs and their attractiveness to the best foreign minds, said Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at the Harvard Kennedy School. 'Our openness to ideas and people, combined with steadiness of funding, drew bright talents from around the globe and science prospered,' Jasanoff said. 'That achievement is in a precarious state through the Trump administration's unpredictable and exclusionary policies that have created an atmosphere in which young scientists are much less comfortable coming to do their science in America.' 'Why would a talented young person wish to invest in a U.S. graduate program if there is a risk their visa could be canceled overnight on poorly articulated and unprecedented grounds? It's clear that other countries, including China, are already trying to benefit from our suddenly uncertain and chaotic research environment,' she added. 'We seem to be heading into an era of self-inflicted ignorance.' Teddy Svoronos, also at Harvard as a senior lecturer in public policy, said that the president is deregulating the AI industry 'while limiting its ability to recruit the highest-quality talent from around the world and de-incentivizing research that lacks immediate commercial use.' 'His policies thus far convince me that the future of the U.S. will certainly have more AI,' Svoronos said, 'but I don't see a coherent strategy around creating more effective or more aligned AI.' Aligned AI, in simple terms, refers to artificial intelligence that is trained to do good and avoid harm. Trump's action plan doesn't include the phrase, but repeatedly emphasizes the need to align AI development with U.S. interests. The deregulatory spirit of Trump's plan could help expedite AI development. But it could also backfire in unexpected ways, Jasanoff said. 'It's not clear that technology development prospers without guardrails that protect scientists and engineers against accidents, overreach and public backlash,' she added. 'The U.S. biotech industry, for example, has actively sought out ethical and policy clarification because missteps could endanger entire lines of research.' The plan also has the United States encouraging the development of open-source and open-weight AI models, allowing public access to code and training data. It is a decision that will allow AI to be more readily adopted throughout the U.S. economy — but also grants malicious actors, such as terrorist organizations, access to AI tools they could use to threaten national security and global peace. It is the sort of compromise that Bengio feared would emerge from the U.S.-China race. 'This dynamic poses serious public safety and national security risks, including AI-enabled cyberattacks, biological threats and the possibility of losing human control over advanced AI — outcomes with no winners,' Bengio said. 'To realize the full benefits of these technologies,' he added, 'safety and innovation must go hand in hand, supported by strong technical and societal safeguards.' The must-read: National Guard came to L.A. to fight unrest. Troops ended up fighting boredomThe deep dive: Hollywood's being reshaped by generative AI. What does that mean for screenwriters?The L.A. Times Special: As west Altadena burned, L.A. County fire trucks stayed elsewhere More to come,Michael Wilner—Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

How a researcher from Medfield created the go-to database of federal research cuts
How a researcher from Medfield created the go-to database of federal research cuts

Boston Globe

time3 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

How a researcher from Medfield created the go-to database of federal research cuts

Advertisement 'There was a lot of grief in that, because I know what's been lost,' Delaney said of seeing the status in black and white. 'The crazy thing is that there are thousands of grants in Grant Watch, and every single one of them entails loss somewhere.' Related : For five months, Grant Watch has provided a singularly detailed account of the devastation within American scientific research, as its biggest funder, the US government, has morphed into an unrelenting adversary. The website is a near-complete list of grants Advertisement Maintained by seven volunteers, the database is searchable by grant status (frozen, terminated, possibly reinstated), university affiliation, or key details, such as a project's title or award number. The people behind the project scrape government websites and review submissions from scientists to add entries. A researcher examined samples on the campus of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health on June 11. Kent Dayton/Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Crowdsourced and consistently accurate, Grant Witness has become a go-to tool for journalists, lawyers, congressional staff, and even some universities themselves, counting the money no longer flowing to their coffers. Root around the website, and you'll find money axed for Related : A tiny slice of those funds went to Delaney, an affable lawyer-turned-epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. He received a He coaches his kids' soccer, picks them up from summer camp, and frequents the Blue Moon Bagel Cafe on Main Street, where most midday patrons are twice his age. Advertisement On a muggy July day, Delaney entered the spot in neon orange HOKA shoes and ordered a double-shot cappuccino, before recounting the story of Grant Witness from day one. When NIH money started to disappear in February, the initiative started as a perfunctory Google spreadsheet to keep tabs on what projects were cut, and why. Then Harvard epidemiology professor Brittany Charlton connected Delaney to Noam Ross, executive director of the science data tracker Delaney in his office at his Medfield home. Suzanne Kreiter/Globe Staff 'This started as, 'Is this something we can find out beyond people's social media posts essentially?'' said Ross, a Brooklyn, New York resident. 'Everyone had complementary initiatives going on.' Now Delaney and his colleagues share weekly Wednesday meetings, early morning Signal messages, and midnight coding sessions to keep up with the latest in research news between their day jobs in data science, biotechnology, and academia. They won a small grant in June to pay a part-time staffer and are searching for additional private investment. In the meantime, volunteers across states are compensated in goodwill for creating a research archive that meets the moment, amid obligations to kids and jobs and grocery runs, said Anthony Barente, a Boston-based data scientist among the group's volunteers. 'My brain is set up to be a data hoarder. When I started this project, I didn't realize what the data would be used for, and I didn't really care,' he said. 'It's all a record for people to take forward, because none of us have been able to fully elucidate how science is changing right now.' Related : Advertisement And Grant Witness's to-do list keeps growing: Checking for more lost grants. Monitoring whether reinstated research projects actually receive their next checks. Adding canceled Environmental Protection Agency grants to the site. And automating features of the website to reduce the need for manual updates. Then there are all the media interviews and endless calls from fearful scientists phoning Delaney to help, vent, or puzzle through what comes next. He once talked about the project as something that would last days or weeks. Now it's years. 'There wasn't an exit strategy at the beginning. There still isn't,' Delaney said. 'We're in this until the end.' But that 'end' feels only more and more amorphous. The shock-and-awe announcements of big funding cuts have waned, but academics are girding for a future of smaller federal investments in all kinds of science. Researchers today scarcely know who to call at grant-making agencies anymore, and even those whose funding remains intact worry about whether the money will flow as planned. Related : The negotiation between Harvard and the White House is a toss-up, too. It could lead to research dollars being returned to campus scientists — 'My best case scenario,' Delaney said — or push President Trump to make good on threats to international student visas and The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, where Delaney works, in Boston. SOPHIE PARK/NYT To Delaney, much of the utility of his database is in providing ammunition for lawsuits to defend research funding. He started his career as an attorney at a big firm. After a recession-era layoff, he hopped between countries to train lawyers advocating for former child soldiers in Burundi and work as a public defender in Palau. Eventually, a stint living with employees of the global health nonprofit Partners in Health inspired Delaney to pursue epidemiology. He got his masters in public health in Baltimore, before moving to Massachusetts for his doctorate at Harvard. Advertisement Now, as universities battle the White House in court, Grant Witness is referenced in lawsuits about NIH dollars, NSF funding, and another that relates to the Trump administration's actions against Harvard. A complaint in court is a tangible vehicle for hope, Delaney said, but he still struggles to dodge cynicism every day. A child of the 1980s, Delaney often thinks about how much money has been unwound for AIDS and HIV research. He's horrified to see grants cut for suicide prevention efforts for transgender children. Funding revocations for research projects led by women and people of color make Delaney question why the background of a scientist has any impact on the credibility of their science. It moved him to seriously heed warnings about the country shifting, away from democracy towards authoritarianism. 'The people pointing to the most extreme possible consequences are oftentimes dismissed,' he said. But 'when the most extreme versions of terrible things start happening, we should probably start listening to those that are warning us.' As for Delaney personally, the options are dizzying. He made peace with the fact that he will likely no longer work at Harvard by Halloween and may leave epidemiology entirely — though he won't depart Grant Witness. Delaney not-so-silently hopes that universities stand their ground against threats to their academic freedom and research enterprise. But he hopes they survive either way. Advertisement 'We've come to appreciate that the fight is bigger than we thought it was,' Delaney said. 'Or maybe I didn't have a thought at all about how big the fight was. It's just that it's a damn big fight.' Diti Kohli can be reached at

Marijuana Could Break Your Heart—Literally
Marijuana Could Break Your Heart—Literally

Newsweek

time4 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Marijuana Could Break Your Heart—Literally

Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Love smoking weed? Prepare to get your heart broken—literally. A flood of recent studies have detailed the damage marijuana does to your mental health, bringing the risks a renewed level of media attention. Weed's linked to everything from psychosis to violent behavior to dementia. But 2025 has been dominated by another piece of bad news about marijuana: that it's just as bad for your cardiac health as it is for your mental health. Consider a meta-analysis from BMJ Heart which appeared just last month. The authors examined dozens of studies on marijuana users and found a two-fold—yes, you read that right—risk of cardiovascular death corresponding to weed use, as well as a 29 percent higher risk of major cardiac events. Many of America's policymakers and all its addiction profiteers keep insisting weed is safe, healthy, and natural. But the BMJ data are just the tip of the iceberg. A May study from the University of California San Francisco found that marijuana was associated with vascular dysfunction in chronic users—regardless of whether they were smoking it or using edibles. There's no cheat code, in other words, to get around the cardiac damage marijuana does. Gummies and candies won't save you. March saw a meta-analysis come out from the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) on 12 studies examining more than 75 million cases to investigate heart attack risk in weed users. The results? Users are 51 percent more likely than nonusers to have had a heart attack. The bad news hasn't just been hitting in 2025, of course. A 2024 American Heart Association study found that daily users had a 25 percent higher risk of heart attack and 42 percent higher risk of stroke compared to non-users and that more frequent use led to higher risk. Another JACC study, this one from 2023, showed users had a 34 percent greater risk of developing coronary artery disease. And on and on and on. LISBON, PORTUGAL - MAY 31: A participant shows marijuana buds in Jardim das Amoreiras before the start of a rally for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Portugal on May 31, 2025, in Lisbon,... LISBON, PORTUGAL - MAY 31: A participant shows marijuana buds in Jardim das Amoreiras before the start of a rally for the legalization and regulation of cannabis in Portugal on May 31, 2025, in Lisbon, Portugal. More Horacio Villalobos/Corbis/Getty Images It's great that all this information is increasingly breaking through into the mainstream. The more people who are aware of it, the better the public health outcomes will be for every American. That goes double given that the U.S. is facing a crisis of marijuana use among both the young and the old (for whom cardiac worries should be paramount). But people who actually pay attention to the public-health dangers marijuana presents have been shouting about this from the rooftops for decades. A 2001 study published in the American Heart Association journal found that in the hour after marijuana use, the risk of a myocardial infarction jumps by almost 400 percent. Those data appeared almost a quarter-century ago. How did this aspect of weed's general public-health effect ever pass under the radar at all—especially since American culture has become laser-focused on wellness in the interim? How many lives have been lost, people injured, families sundered? The fact that weed's heart dangers have ever been anything less than a national story is a testament to how successful the marijuana industry, its advocates in the media, and the politicians it's coopted have been at reputation management. Luckily, the word now seems to be out. But we need to get louder. It's time for everyone to reckon with this reality. That means a renewed and urgent focus on prevention from our policymakers—and remember, prevention needs to target both young and old. It means energetic callouts from journalists whenever "weed equals wellness" claims start to bubble up. It means parents letting their kids know that yes, marijuana can be deadly. Everyone invested in promoting sane policy and saving public health needs to take this to heart. Dr. Kevin Sabet is the president and CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store